London Cycling Campaign has criticised Home Secretary Suella Braverman for not taking the dangers of speeding on road seriously after she committed an offence and allegedly requested civil servants to arrange a private speed awareness course, thus looking to “avoid public scrutiny” and “dismiss the danger caused to others by speeding”.
Braverman was caught speeding in a 50mph zone last summer when she was attorney general, and given the option of accepting a fine and points on her licence or attending a speed awareness course.
According to the Sunday Times, she allegedly asked civil servants to help her to arrange a one-to-one course to avoid the embarrassment of being recognised by fellow participants. When civil servants declined to do so, she sought other options including taking an online course without revealing her identity. Ultimately, she opted to pay the fine.
road.cc reached out to London Cycling Campaign, and Simon Munk, Head of Campaigns told us about the concerns this raises for the state of safety on British roads and drivers’ attitude towards speeding and the dangers caused by it.
He said: “Surveys tell us that a majority of UK drivers admit to speeding routinely. We have an enforcement and justice system that tolerates this and more, frequently lets off dangerous, even killer drivers for tearing apart lives, families and friendship circles with little or no consequences. And all while the evidence shows speeding is one of the primary causes of serious and fatal collisions.
“Anyone in public life, let alone someone responsible for the public’s safety, attempting to stand above the public on this issue and avoid an appropriate punishment is deeply concerning. Even more concerning is that over and over again we see senior politicians and others in public life not only caught speeding, but attempting to dismiss that as an issue and often getting away with no real consequences.
“We’ve also heard from those who have attended speed awareness courses that part of the benefit of the course is having others talking about the terrible excuses they’ve given themselves for speeding and indeed offenders having to confess their own excuses to others. Trying to sidestep that to avoid public scrutiny not only misses the point of the course, it also dismisses the danger caused to others by speeding.”
More traffic trouble for the Tory Government?
News of Braverman’s offence came after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was fined for his failure to wear a seatbelt last year. Within the last year, two of Braverman’s ministers at the Home Office were banned from driving for six months. The immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, was caught driving almost 30mph over the limit and the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, was caught driving while using a mobile phone.
> Green Party: Government’s “anti-cycling narrative” creates danger for cyclists
David Ward, the executive president of the Towards Zero Foundation, which campaigns to reduce road deaths across the world, also came out in criticism of the Home Secretary, stating politicians were “normalising” breaches in road safety.
He said: “There is a worrying trend, whether its Rishi Sunak’s failure to put on a seatbelt or now Suella Braverman, when senior politicians really ought to be setting a better example.”
He added: “Going on a course in public is part of the penalty – by trying to somehow make it private, she was in effect trying to mitigate the impact. This makes it doubly complacent.”
However, notorious lawyer acclaimed for earning ‘not guilty’ verdicts for celebrities charged with driving offences and outspoken and self-proclaimed road safety expert Mr Loophole, or Nick Freeman came to Braverman’s defence.
> Mr Loophole applauds police action against “vigilante cyclists” filming law-breaking drivers
Mr Loophole said: “On occasions the course providers contacted us and said, ‘I know you’re asking for such and such, would you mind if we have the course just exclusively for that particular person?’
“The reason behind it tends to be they want people attending the course to concentrate on the contents of the course and not on the people who are actually at the course.
“So if you’ve got a world class footballer or world class actor or musician, you don’t want people looking thinking, ‘oh wow, guess who’s on my course!’, they want to be tuning into what the course is about. So there’s nothing wrong with that.”
Can Braverman be forced to resign for a speeding offence?
Meanwhile, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), representing civil servants have released a statement: “Breaking the ministerial code doesn’t appear so much to be a lapse of judgement as of a pattern of behaviour. Suella Braverman is quick to criticise civil servants when it suits her, but even quicker to ask for their help when she needs it.
“Civil servants’ role is to deliver government policy not to act as her personal assistants. How many more lives will Rishi Sunak give her? This is double standards. If she was a PCS Union member she would not expect to be treated so leniently.”
The Labour leadership has also called for investigation into the claims, and demanded that she should go if she broke ministerial rules. Braverman has already breached ethics before under the short-lived Liz Truss government and had to resign as Home Secretary back then, before being reappointed by Sunak.
Besides, there’s already a precedent for ministers landing in hot waters for speeding offences. In the past, Labour MP for Peterborough Fiona Onasanya was ejected from parliament by a recall petition after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice in 2018, by lying to avoid a speeding fine.
The Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne also resigned from the coalition cabinet in 2012 and ultimately served time in prison over an arrangement in which his wife had taken speeding points on his behalf 10 years earlier.
Braverman, however, has claimed that she is “confident that nothing untoward happened”.
92 thoughts on “Suella Braverman criticised by cycling campaign group for “avoiding public scrutiny” over speeding offence”
If she didn’t want the
If she didn’t want the embarrassment of being in the same room as us plebs, then she shouldn’t have done the crime. If she had any integrity, she could have gone on the public course and maybe even spoken afterwards about what she’d learnt. Now, she’s got the points and the public embarrassment – what a complete idiot.
Agreed. She could even have
Agreed. She could even have turned the course to her advantage: I made a mistake, and I’m paying the price just like everyone else (except offenders in Lancashire, of course)
Sort of Streisand effect?
Sort of Streisand effect?
A senior politician and former lawyer trying to bend the rules to hide embarrassing breaches of said rules? Colour me surprised.
If she’d been as intelligent
If she’d been as intelligent as she believes herself to be, she would have engaged a road safety type solicitor, who might have sorted it. But she wasn’t that bright and cheap with it.
There are also allegations of lying to journalists about the matter some time ago.
Seeing the commentary on the
Seeing the commentary on the news, you would be forgiven for thinking that speeding isn’t a crime…..
On one level, that fact that
On one level, that fact that she was embarrassed/ashamed for it to be known she was convicted of speeding is encouraging. However it says something about her character that she sought to protect her privacy not by stumping up the cash and taking the points like anybody else, but by abusing the privilege of her office, so cheaply.
The Peter Principle.
The Peter Principle.
I think Suella has reached her natural tide mark in her career, now…
brooksby wrote:
Not sure it applies, she was obviously incompetent long before the last promotion.
She was probably the worst AG the country has ever had.
Sniffer wrote:
That was my point, and my understanding of the PP – she has now failed upwards as far as she can go: she’ll have to move down now…
The Peter principle states
The Peter principle states that a person who is competent at their job will earn a promotion to a position that requires different skills. If the promoted person lacks the skills required for the new role, they will be incompetent at the new level, and will not be promoted again.[1] If the person is competent in the new role, they will be promoted again and will continue to be promoted until reaching a level at which they are incompetent. Being incompetent, the individual will not qualify for promotion again, and so will remain stuck at this final placement or Peter’s plateau.
My understanding is more like the above. As she has been incompetent at lower roles than Home Secretary, the Peter Principle hasn’t really worked in this case.
Sniffer wrote:
OK – my misunderstanding and I stand corrected. Dammit! 😉
Sniffer wrote:
Are they shuffling all the incompetents into position of power so that when they screw up, they can then replace all of them with the upstanding, competent politicians that they’ve been saving for a rainy day?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Er…. no.
I don’t think the governing party has enough upstanding, competent people to form a Government left.
I was on a driver awareness
I was on a driver awareness course just this morning. I was embarssed I got caught, don’t normally speed, and first time caught on 27 years driving.
There was no AA moment where I had to stand and say, hello, l my name is Tim, and I’ve been a naughty boy, and nobody would have recognised her a year ago. I found that the only thing I learned is that I can speed in another county, and go on their course next week if I got caught there, but can only do it again in my county after 3 years has lapsed.
It confirmed to me that older gents think it’s illegal for cyclists to ride 2 abreast, and to not use cycle lanes, and that cyclists are generally hated. Some in there had 6 points, previous 18 month bans, and that’s just 2 that admitted it. Saved my license and the expense on insurance, but that’s about it.
Speeding is wrong, does kill, and no excuse. However, the issue is not that she sped, but tried to cover it up
Pyro Tim wrote:
Are you Dorset based? As far as I’m aware Dorset is the only county in England and Wales that doesn’t subscribe to the National Speed Awareness Scheme and so yes, you can be offered a course in Dorset and one in another county within three years, but for all other counties in England and Wales one every three years is all you can be offered. Offend twice in three years with neither offence being in Dorset and you’ll have to take the points and fine for the second one.
shit, busted
shit, busted
If I try and read this
If I try and read this situation without too much anti politician blood frenzy then all she really asked is if there was some way for public figures to do a one to one driver improvement course and was told that was not an option. She didn’t try and get the NIP overturned or for a free pass to state that she had attended but didn’t and in the end she opted for points and a fine which everyone has a right to do.
Not sure I can get too upset over this beyond her boss making a clear statement that members of his government should not even think about enquiring if there are other options for them in such circumstances.
Alternatively, she asked the
Alternatively, she asked the non-political civil service to try and get her out of a personal problem, which is decidedly not their job. It’s her job to arrange punishment/correction for her crimes, not civil servants’.
She did do that.
She did do that.
The civil service said no and then she asked someone else.
It’s hardly Watergate.
I’m with Mungecrundle that this is being blown out of all proportion.
The worst part of it all is that actually committing the offence of speeding isn’t even considered an issue in 99% of the media coverage.
Rich_cb wrote:
The person responsible for the fair and equal application of the law of the land asked the civil servants appointed to assist her in the fair and equal application of the law of the land asked said civil servants if they could help manipulate a legal process for her own advantage and convenience, yeah, nothing to be concerned about here. I expect it would be OK with you if the Health Secretary asked their civil servants if they could help bump them up a waiting list, or the Chancellor asked his officials to help him minimise his tax burden, provided the civil servants said no. And the minister in question was a Tory, of course.
She asked if it was possible
She asked if it was possible to do the course in private.
She was told no.
I’m not seeing the major scandal here.
Rich_cb wrote:
FWIW BBC has “Suella Braverman says she is “confident nothing untoward happened”, but has refused to be drawn over whether she asked civil servants to arrange a one-to-one speed awareness course for her.”
They’re right about her avoiding the question.
It doesn’t seem to be up there with Dominic or Boris – or indeed her last time round. But whether this dies away likely just depends on what other stories tomorrow brings us…
Rich_cb wrote:
This is not actually the case. If she had simply asked, as a matter of factual enquiry and advice and in general terms, if it were possible for her to have a one-to-one course (as you state) that would be one thing (people would still be entitled to ask why the Home Secretary and former Attorney General needed advice on such a basic and easily-Googleable point and why she thought it appropriate to use her civil servants for personal advice). However, she didn’t: she asked her civil servants if they could arrange for her to have a one-to-one course. That’s very different and a clear breach of the Ministerial Code which forbids ministers from using the civil service to assist in personal matters.
She asked if the civil
She asked if the civil servants could make an enquiry on her behalf. The enquiry being ‘Is it possible to do the course in private? ‘.
The civil servants said that they couldn’t make that enquiry for her.
That’s the sum of the matter. As I said, it’s hardly Watergate.
It’s only because Braverman is the bête noire of a certain section of the media that this is getting any traction at all.
Rich_cb wrote:
If that is the sum of the matter, why did she refuse eleven times in the House of Commons today to answer the question “Did you ask civil servants to arrange a private speed awareness course for you?” Surely “I asked civil servants if private speed awareness courses were an option and was told no [or “that they couldn’t answer that question for me”] so decided to pay the fine. At no point did I ask any civil servant to arrange a private course for me.” would be the reply if your version of events is correct?
This is just getting into
This is just getting into semantics now.
‘Can private courses be arranged?’
‘Can you arrange a private course?’
This is a nothing story.
In combination with the Raab investigation and the Sue Gray debacle it’s starting to look like the civil service are not being quite as impartial as they pretend to be.
Rich_cb wrote:
For once I entirely agree with you, it is indeed about semantics, semantics being concerned with the meaning and truth of statements. There is a world of difference between “Is it an option for anybody to go on a one-to-one private course?” and “Can you, as my civil servant, arrange for me to go on a one-to-one private course?” The first is a simple enquiry regarding fact, the second is a request for a civil servant to arrange special treatment for a minister in a matter concerning an offence committed in her private life and is a clear breach of the ministerial code.
Once again, if she has done nothing wrong and it’s perfectly innocent and straightforward behaviour, why did she refuse eleven times in the House of Commons to answer a simple question about it?
Well I guess you’ll have to
Well I guess you’ll have to wait and see exactly what form of words were used.
Personally I don’t think it’s much of a story either way.
Just the civil service trying to bring down another minister.
Rich_cb wrote:
I am not sure that it is much of a story either, but I am not sure it is sensible to blame the civil service for all the stuff that is coming down on the heads of Ministers that are out of their depth.
It is sad that rather than look in the mirror, the politicians in power just look to blame someone else.
Don’t let them off the hook.
I used to be less cynical but
I used to be less cynical but the whole Sue Gray affair has really knocked the scales from my eyes.
Rich_cb wrote:
Really.
Most of the dirt being thrown at her is so that Johnson can blame someone else for his inability to do his job properly, his lack of integrity and the fact that he blew a large majority.
Her report on Partygate was very mild. He kind of survived Partygate using it as a screen and then messed up, yet again, on Pinchergate.
I am surprised at you being taken in by the obfiscation by that element of the Tory party and its backers.
You don’t think it’s slightly
You don’t think it’s slightly strange that the person who led an impartial investigation which helped end Boris’ term as PM, and thus hugely boosted the election prospects of the Labour party, was then given a very well paid job in the Labour party?
There are serious question marks about when Labour made their approach too. IMHO that is orders of magnitude more serious than the Braverman fiasco.
Rich_cb wrote:
Not particularly.
It was Johnson that appointed her….. only after the first choice had to recluse himself as he wasn’t squeaky clean himself on Partygate.
It is odd which scandals bring down politicians. Johnson could have gone for a lack of integrity and dishonesty (sacked from previous jobs more than once for dishonesty), but it turned out that the Chris Pincher appointment that did for him.
Partygate may have brought him down in time, there are still HoC processes underway, but Sue Gray’s report didn’t do that.
Johnson, and his backers, will blame anyone else but he was (and is) entirely unsuited to Public Office regardless of your view of his policies.
What brings the Home Secretary down is unclear as yet, but her unsuitability for Office will in the end bring her down.
I think the Pincher thing was
I think the Pincher thing was just the first convenient scandal to justify the defenestration.
After the partygate report Boris was an electoral liability and the machinations began to orchestrate his removal.
The actual Pincher scandal was irrelevant. Any scandal would have resulted in the same outcome.
FWIW I don’t think ongoing contact (including a financial inducement) between the Leader of the Opposition and the senior civil servant involved in an active investigation into the current PM can be dismissed lightly.
Neither party will confirm when contact began which leads to the conclusion that it began well before it should have done.
Rich_cb wrote:
Once again, what is there in the Gray report that you think is untrue? What is there that Johnson or any other parties criticised in the report have alleged to be untrue? Johnson commissioned the report and accepted its findings, if there was any dispute about the truth of her findings then your continuous insinuations that she must have colluded with Starmer to produce an unfavourable report might have some basis, but as far as I’m aware there are none.
The only political option
The only political option Boris had was to accept the report and hope the issue died down. Keeping it in the news, with an appeal etc, was political suicide. Gray and Starmer would have understood this well.
Regardless, there appears to have been a significant breach of the civil service code with the timing of the approach and job offer.
If there must be consequences for Braverman, based on her refusal to confirm/deny a code breach, then surely there must be consequences for Gray/Starmer?
Rich_cb wrote:
I haven’t read all the posts, but what’s the connection between Gray/Starmer and misusing the civil service?
Gray/Starmer are alleged to
Gray/Starmer are alleged to have breached the civil service code. They both refuse to answer questions regarding this.
Braverman is alleged to have breached the ministerial code. She refuses to answer questions regarding this.
For some reason certain posters are very keen for Braverman to be punished but less so for Gray/Starmer.
Rich_cb wrote:
It certainly seems to me that Braverman’s breach is more serious as she’s currently in a senior position, but I am perfectly happy for Gray/Starmer to face the consequences of their breaches. However, the investigation into Gray’s employment has not been released, so I don’t think there’s anything for her to actually answer to, except for partisan accusations.
Has the investigation into
Has the investigation into Braverman been released?
I’m assuming you also think there’s nothing for her to answer to other than partisan accusations?
Gray/Starmer appear to have had contact in breach of the civil service code, a financial inducement appears to have been made by Starmer. Both Starmer and Gray are extremely reticent about when the contact first took place.
If you think the possible offering of a financial inducement by the Leader of the Opposition to a civil servant investigating the PM is less serious than an alleged attempt to do a speed awareness course in private then I’m not sure you’ve got a proper grasp on the situation.
Rich_cb wrote:
Is there an investigation into Braverman? If so, then yes we should wait for the results, but it seems fairly obvious that misusing the civil service is not acceptable.
As neither Gray nor Starmer are in office, I think you’re just trying to shift attention away from your beloved Tories. To my mind, politicians in office have to abide by certain rules and attempting to use the civil service for personal matters is clearly wrong.
You seem to be implying that Gray was bought and influenced by Starmer to exaggerate or falsify the report into Johnson’s law breaking and subsequent lying, but I’ve seen no evidence that Gray’s report was incorrect in any manner. Can you just pinpoint which parts of the report you disagree with?
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/24/suella-braverman-will-not-face-investigation-over-speeding-claims-rishi-sunak
I’m implying that there is an
I’m implying that there is an alleged breach of the civil service code.
Starmer and Gray are refusing to answer questions regarding this.
The potential breach is far more significant than Braverman’s alleged misdeeds but, strangely, the good folk of road.cc seem inclined to ignore it.
Perhaps your accusations of bias should be spread a bit more widely?
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re firmly into whataboutism territory here. There was a full investigation into Starmer and Gray, but for some strange reason, the report is not being released, so I think your accusations are invalid.
Once again, can you just pinpoint which parts of the Gray report do you find troubling or inaccurate?
Just to be clear – I am no fan of Gray nor Starmer. I thought Gray’s report was watered down and it does seem to have completely missed the Chequers party. Keith Starmer is in my view a red Tory and I don’t agree with a lot that he says and I wouldn’t vote for him unless it’s a straight choice between him and the Tories. Meanwhile, this whole topic is specifically about Braverman and nothing at all to do with Gray/Starmer. I think you’re just looking for a target to attack “on the other side” and falling into the trap of partisan thinking.
The point of bringing up Gray
The point of bringing up Gray/Starmer is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of several posters on this topic.
The Gray/Starmer situation is very similar to the Braverman situation.
Questions are refused, vague assurances given.
Yet, apparently, Braverman should be sacked and Gray/Starmer have no case to answer.
Rich_cb wrote:
So, it is just whataboutism, then.
I don’t agree that the Gray/Starmer situation is at all similar – there was no initial law breaking and I can’t see any evidence of trying to cover up the law breaking (that didn’t happen).
Braverman should be sacked due to her incompetence – not necessarily just because of this. Breaking the ministerial code is not necessarily grounds for dismissal, but often just for a warning to not do it again. However, she has shown her incompetence and lack of judgement on many other topics and I don’t think she should be anywhere near government. I wouldn’t trust her to manage some kids cycling to school.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Given her inability to drive at the speed limit, I wouldn’t trust her near some kids cycling to school.
Rendel Harris wrote:
FTFY
Also, from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/23/civil-servants-have-to-fact-check-suella-bravermans-claims-to-cabinet
One insider said she made “basic errors”, while another said she “keeps getting facts wrong”. After meetings with other senior ministers, the Cabinet Office was said to have had to contact officials from the Home Office, who were asked to “factcheck” her claims.
There was no such similar problem when her predecessor, Priti Patel, ran the Home Office, the Guardian was told.
I accept your correction.
I accept your correction.
There was no attempt to cover
There was no attempt to cover up law breaking. Now you’re just being ridiculous.
She wanted the option to do the course in private. There’s no suggestion she wanted to avoid the course.
There is, AFAIK, no minimum number of attendees for a course to be valid so the group element of it is not a compulsory part.
The Braverman issue was related to breaching the ministerial code, the Gray/Starmer issue is related to breaching the civil service code.
Both allegations relate to politicians not following the rules around interactions with the civil service.
In both cases the parties involved refused to answer questions on the topic.
They’re directly analogous.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is getting tedious.
She wanted a private course so that her law breaking would not be publicised amongst the other attendees i.e. cover it up or conceal it. She also specifically denied that she was speeding to journalists which in itself is not illegal, but shows clear intention to keep her law breaking hidden from as many people as possible (otherwise known as covering it up).
The group nature of speeding courses is a very important part as the attendees will interact and discuss things that they didn’t realise about speeding. They don’t do private courses as that would skip a key educational part of the experience. If she had asked about private courses directly, she would have been given a flat “no”, but it appears she wanted to abuse her position as I can’t think why she would otherwise ask the civil service to ask on her behalf. However, it could just as easily have been sheer incompetence on her part.
I completely disagree with your comparison with Gray/Starmer and won’t bother continuing this discussion as it’s going nowhere.
There is no compulsory group
There is no compulsory group element to the speed awareness courses.
Asking for a private course is not therefore asking for any lesser punishment.
If public recognition were an important part of speed awareness courses then then the names of participants would be published. They are not, so most people are able to do them in complete anonymity as the chances of being recognised are minimal.
Your pretence that’s there’s no comparison with the Starmer/Gray situation is just cognitive dissonance on your part.
Both involve a senior politician and a civil servant.
Both involve an alleged breach of a code.
Both involve the direct avoidance of questioning.
Rich_cb wrote:
And one involved an investigation… and one won’t!
Sounds like we don’t have the results of that investigation though – anyone know what the hitch is?
chrisonatrike wrote:
They didn’t find anything that broke the code, so they don’t want to publish it as it’ll look like it was just politically motivated.
Sauce for goose etc… anyway
Sauce for goose etc… anyway here’s the civil service reporting at the start of this month on where the matter rests. And the Grauniad’s version.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Okay, that gives more information as to Gray’s reticence:
She also withdrew her
She also withdrew her cooperation because she found that the Cabinet Office enquiry, which was established on pretty dodgy ground anyway as there is no formal precedent for it, was using evidence that she had submitted to ACBA without her consent for it to be revealed to them. Don’t blame her at all. ACBA should decide on the propiety or otherwise of her actions, as it does in all these cases, not a kangaroo court set up by the government out of spite and a desperate desire to deflect from their own misdemeanours.
Rich_cb wrote:
Do stop saying “offering a financial inducement” when what you mean is offering a job, you are trying to conjure up some sort of picture of brown envelopes full of tenners being chucked at Gray to fiddle her report. Starmer has made it perfectly clear that no approach was made to ask Gray if she was interested in the job of chief of staff until after her report was published. Political leaders are perfectly entitled to enquire as to whether civil servants are interested in coming to work for them, and many civil servants have done so: Jonathan Powell left the foreign office to become Tony Blair’s chief of staff in 1995, for example. Like many Tories in their current freefall, your attempts to create a deflectionary scandal really are looking rather desperate. You may wish to note, incidentally, that the Cabinet Office investigation into Ms Gray, which senior Tories briefed was going to prove that she had broken the civil service code, has been completed but the Cabinet Office minister is refusing to release it, despite the Head of the Civil Service saying that it should be. Very unusually for this government there haven’t even been any links or rumours that any malfeasance was discovered. Funny that, isn’t it?
A bribe would be so déclassé.
A bribe would be so déclassé.
A large salary on the other hand.
When government ministers get well paid sinecures shortly after leaving office it raises eyebrows but obviously the same rules don’t apply here…
Are you discussing the investigation that Gray refused to engage with?
There are clear rules for civil servants moving in to political roles. Starmer and Gray both refuse to give detailed answers about when the job offer was made and when contact between the two parties began.
Why would they be so reticent if all was above board?
Sniffer wrote:
Have to agree – karma operates differently at the top. Personal attributes which would have you out of many other jobs (lying, disloyalty, not taking responsibility, disinterest in the detail of your brief) turn out to be but the flip side of positives (ambition, self- belief, focus on popular appeal and ignoring the “politics” that most really don’t care about). People *like* that you’re different, a renegade and get up others’ noses… until they don’t – somehow belief disappears and your colleagues pragmatically withdraw their support.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Loyalty also seems to play a big part in politics. Politicians that don’t display loyalty can often get themselves into top positions with some machiavellian scheming, but then when they reach the top, they suddenly find that no-one is loyal to them.
Rich_cb wrote:
Gray produced a balanced and factual report; the general consensus was that if anything it was too easy on Johnson and hs colleagues for their repeated breaches of their own laws and guidelines. She then decided to leave the civil service and, perfectly legitimately as others have done before her, take up a position with a political party because it was made quite clear to her that she could not expect further advancement as she didn’t fit the template of male public school Oxbridge mandarins that still largely hold sway in the higher echelons of the civil service. It would be a shame if that had made you cynical, particularly as prior to the “affair” you were so noted for your non-partisan, unbiased and politically open-minded stance on this forum.
Alternatively, a supposedly
Alternatively, a supposedly impartial senior civil servant conducts an investigation into the most successful Conservative politician for a generation.
The result of said investigation is the end of said politician’s term as PM.
Almost immediately after said investigation the civil servant is appointed to a well paid position with the political party that benefited most from her impartial investigation.
If that doesn’t smell fishy to you then you don’t have a nose.
Both Gray and Starter have been pretty coy about when their discussions about her role began too. Going back to your line of questioning from earlier, why not answer the questions if they’ve nothing to hide?
Rich_cb wrote:
What do you find factually incorrect in Gray’s report? Anything? I see today Johnson has been referred to the police again for hosting friends at Chequers during lockdown, you appear to be keen to shoot the messenger. Note that the full Gray report wasn’t even released until long after Johnson resigned.
More importantly, your assertion that her investigation brought down Johnson is simply untrue. Johnson resigned because huge numbers of his own ministers resigned and MPs expressed a lack of faith in him due to his failure to act over the Chris Pincher sexual assault allegations. The “Johnson was brought down for having a piece of birthday cake” narrative as favoured by his supporters is nonsense.
You’ve nicely swerved my
You’ve nicely swerved my question there Rendel. Care to answer it?
Gray’s report was one of the final nails in the coffin of Boris’tenure as PM. Without ‘partygate’ he likely would have continued as PM. Once the report was out Boris was an electoral liability and the wheels were put in motion.
I have no idea what was accurate or not, I wasn’t actually there.
Prior to the revelations about her contact with, and subsequent employment by, the Labour party I was happy to trust Gray’s version. Now I’m much more sceptical.
Who benefits? You ought to be
Who benefits? You ought to be asking questions of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak too!
I suspect the main reasons for his fall are down to one individual – name begins with B…
Rich_cb wrote:
If Gray’s report was in any way biased, innaccurate or untrustworthy, why did Johnson accept her findings in full, apologise and say he took full reponsibility for the wrongdoing it revealed?
In terms of your question about Starmer having nothing to hide, he has unequivocally stated that he did not approach Sue Gray with any form of job offer whilst she was involved in conducting her enquiry. You may choose to disbelieve that if you wish but in terms of “why not answer the question?” he has done so – something which Braverman, whom you are defending, refused to do eleven times yesterday in the Commons.
I’m glad that you think
I’m glad that you think refusing to answer a question should raise suspicions.
“Sue Gray refuses to cooperate with inquiry into her job with Labour”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sue-gray-keir-starmer-report-latest-b2331052.html
“Sir Keir Starmer refuses ten times to say when he first approached Sue Gray over job”
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-sue-gray-chief-of-staff-refuses-to-say/
Granted it’s not quite 11…
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well at least all those shenanigans are over and done with now.
Oh wait…
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/23/boris-johnson-referred-to-police-over-allegedly-hosting-friends-at-chequers-in-lockdown
Remember that Sue Grey chose
Remember that Sue Grey chose not to investigate at least one “event” which, it seems, was probably the worst party of all of the one Boris attended in terms of breaking the rules. I mean the “ABBA party” in the flat. No one has any idea why this was not investigated. Before her links to the labour party were revealed (and before the report was published), Tory ministers and Boris were falling over themselves to say what a great person Sue Gray was and how impartial she would be. It’s only when they found out they could smear her and therefore her report the tables turned.
Yes indeed, as I said earlier
Yes indeed, as I said earlier, the general consensus (and not only from the left) when the Gray report was published was that Johnson & co had dodged a bullet and that she could justifiably gone deeper and been harsher in her conclusions.
Seventyone wrote:
Ah, but Johnson can always dig a deeper hole: now we have the news stories about him putting up friends’n’relations at Chequers during lockdown restrictions…
Agree it is by no means the
Agree it is by no means the biggest reason she should not be in Government.
I think we can make a long list of why she is unsuitable though.
Sniffer wrote:
The forestry commission has asked you to stop writing that list – they just can’t plant replacement trees quick enough
Rendel Harris wrote:
I imagine this type of thing goes on every day over quiet drinks after work in the private club.
NOtotheEU wrote:
Of course it does. Doesn’t make it acceptable though.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Agreed. Sadly people always seem more desperate to vote for Machiavellian types than honourable, principled individuals.
As with Watergate, the cover
As with Watergate, the cover up is worse than the crime. It is most unedifying to see a minister directly refuse to answer questions from an MP about whether or not she asked civil servants to get her a private course. Is she doesn’t think it’s a big issue to ask them to do this, why won’t she admit that is what she did?
Trying to use civil servants
Trying to use civil servants to cover up something for party political purposes is a clear cut breach of the ministerial code.
And to everyone saying it doesn’t count because they refused to do it needs to ask themselves why they refused to do it, and remember that a minister is responsible for the actions of their ministry and themselves.
“I offered a bribe, but it
“I offered a bribe, but it wasn’t a crime because they said no”
My two cents:
My two cents:
I’m probably more concerned that she was caught speeding – I would tend to agree with Simon Munk’s comments that it is disappointing to see any MP, let alone the former Attorney General and current Home Secretary, committing crimes – either because they see speeding as a non-crime, or because they see themselves above the law (or both). It is pure hypocrisy.
I’ve never done a speed awareness course, but I will acknowledge that it does not seem an entirely level punishment for public figures compared to most people – everyone might do it “in public”, but I imagine most people are in a room full of strangers and are highly unlikely to be recognised or ever come into contact with those strangers again. If I ever do end up on such a course, I can guarantee you it will not be reported in the newspapers.
That said, it does seem like an abuse of power to try and get civil servants to arrange that for her – their job is to serve the country, not serve the ministers personally. If she had personally instructed a lawyer (I’m sure the one quoted in the article would have been available) to make the arrangements on her behalf, then that would have been preferrable.
Not just her personally, this
Not just her personally, this was mostly meant to protect the party so definitely against the ministerial code.
Andy Cox
Andy Cox:
Radio 4 had Nigel “drink
Radio 4 had Nigel “drink driving isn’t a crime” Havers on to discuss this case!!!!!
Of course the debate is over
Of course the debate is over the ministerial code rather than her dangerous actions…
As for Mr Loophole’s loophole: install confession booths in the classroom and have people reveal their identity at the end, that way nobody is distracted from the class and nobody escapes the punishment.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Of course it is, why wouldn’t it be?
I think it’s far more important to make sure that she is a competent law-maker and government official than a competent driver. She has the potential to cause far more damage as one (of 15) cabinet members or one (of 650) MPs than one (of 41.5m) drivers.
Clearly the newsworthy aspect here is that she breached the ministerial code with a blatant conflict of interest.
I used to be fascinated by
I used to be fascinated by stories like this but lately I’m finding it really hard to give a s**t.
She broke the speed limit like 90% of drivers who are selfish, dangerous idiots.
She tried to use her position to gain a personal advantage like 90% of politicians who are selfish, self serving liars.
She may or may not resign (again) and you may or may not feel better for a moment. The world will keep on turning, average peoples lives will keep getting made harder by those in charge and cyclists will keep getting killed by drivers like the hit and run victim in B’ham last Tuesday who’s 2 year old son will probably still be in infants school when the killer legally gets back behind the wheel.
She has done far worse that
She has done far worse that speeding after all. Telling endless mistruths and peddling brexit fantasies is her main offence – but then they all do that too.
Poor old cruella, think she’s
Poor old cruella, think she’s rather shot herself in the foot here, she tried to arrange a one to one speed awareness course rather than around perhaps 30 other people on the same course realising who she actually is, now the whole flippin country knows about it ?
Why didn’t she wear a mask?
Why didn’t she wear a mask? Or take off the one she’s wearing?
This is just another part of the endless tory story of:
“One rule for them, and a different rule for us.”
How long can Sunak swerve the
How long can Sunak swerve the obvious on Braverman’s speeding?
Colin from Portsmouth is on
Colin from Portsmouth is on the line